From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
 "Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces" <arielluaces@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:57:38 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <CAFvNmHR0WwMp0eNQhvs9uFFSq3wGdHVTFUFmByLLdz7EUjg8uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b56bd582-e605-4389-96ce-c1cb0c58f1ad@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b56bd582-e605-4389-96ce-c1cb0c58f1ad@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <202103021857.39275.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UASF (LOT=true) kick off meeting - Tuesday March
	2nd 19:00 UTC on ##uasf IRC channel
Precedence: list

On Tuesday 02 March 2021 18:22:35 Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'm realizing that a clear advantage of LOT=false is that it can happen
> without the need for a social movement. All that is really needed is the
> convincing of 95% miners. Apathetic users will never notice any kind of
> service disruption no matter the success or failure of the activation. This
> is obviously why it naturally became the default activation method.

No. Miners enforcing rules without the social support is a 51% attack, not a 
softfork.

> While LOT=true, on the other hand, must be able to 51% the blockchain to
> win the apathetic users. But then the reorgs will not be pretty. Or if it
> ever clearly gets over the 51% hurdle then all apathetic users now need to
> scramble to use the rogue client to be safe from reorgs. Either way it's
> disruptive.

No, LOT=True doesn't do this. It only happens if miners choose to create an 
invalid chain, which they could do at any time with or without a softfork 
involved.

Luke